Mr Bagwell

Rumor has it..... a big company (starts with F) is compiling these types of statistics. You may want to check with a rep and see what they can generate for you.

I will jump on some of this..... The management company may imply that all three entities are in a control group. My guess is that the management company is affiliated ONLY with the MD LLC's. If not, other questions arise as to how much of the management company's income is derived from where.... When the management company is shut down, the two MD LLC's may not be a control group. Is either one of the DR's involved as a director or employee of the other's corporation? If not, the attribution is not attributed. However, if they have a minor child, this DOES create a controlled group. I would hate for you to get this all rolling only to find out you have to separate later....

I agree with Rather, just charge an asset fee on non-revenue sharing funds. Easy to calculate and easy to explain. They can choose to have the fee be billed or deducted. I don't like revenue sharing....I won't disagree with those that use them... I tend to stay away from the per participant charge because I don't want to count number of employees. If I did have to count, I'm charging for every person I have to account for at testing time, whether or not they have balance. I like answering when someone asks what are the fees I am paying? You pay the fund expense fee and an asset fee. Done.

Check the plan document. One we use says: If the Plan permits Roth Deferrals in addition to Pre-Tax Deferrals, Elective Deferrals for purpose of Section 3.05 (Safe Harbor 401k Contributions) includes both Roth Deferrals and Pre-Tax Deferrals.

I'm pretty sure the IPS is a suggestion. From my experience, it is used to show that the employer has a policy\procedure in place to replace clunker funds. Some providers that provide a 3(21) fiduciary service will typically have a boiler plate IPS. Some brokers will use a boiler plate IPS from like a fi360 like application. I have not seen a generic fillable version outside a "pay for play" version or service provider version. Although, some investment committee may come up with their own.

Belgarath, No harm, no foul. Are we on the same page that the employee would be a Participant on date of rehire on 8/15/2016? Thanks

rcline... couple of parameters wacky. 8/11/14 - 6/30/15 (actually terminated 4/22/15) yes to 1000 hours 7/1/2015 - 6/30/16 no hours worked 7/1/16 - 6/30/17 for this discussion we will assume 1000 hours worked. Rehired 8/15/16 The first eligible compensation period is 8/11/14 to 8/10/15. worked 1000 hours, termed 4/22/15. The first entry date would have been 1/1/2016. Yes, there was a break in service from 15-16 plan year, but I'm not sure where or why a potential problem. As Belgarath mentioned above our document is very similar... Rehired Eligible Employee Who Had Satisfied Eligibility. An Eligible Employee who satisfies the Plan's eligibility conditions, but who incurs a Separation from Service prior to becoming a Participant, subject to any Break in Service rule, if applicable, under section......, will become a Participant on the later of : (1) the Entry Date on whichhe/she would have entered the Plan had he/she not incurred a Separation from Service; or (2) his/her Re-employement Commencement Date. There is no one year hold out rule. Anything change for you? Thanks

The break in service phrase has come up twice now. The employee did not work any hours from 7/1/15-6/30/16. So a break in service happened there.

Thanks Belgarath! I got hung up on employee not being employed on first entry date...... I don't think I have been messing this up as it doesn't come up that often. Most of the time the rehires were already a participant in the plan.

Got a heated debate on this one. 19, YOS (1000) Semi Entry, 6/30 PYE Employee hired 8/11/14 Terms 4/22/15 Worked 1000 hours between 8/11/14 and 4/22/15 Rehired 8/15/16 What is employees participation (entry) Date? I say 1/1/17 because employee was not an employee on 1/1/16 or 7/1/16. I am being told the employee is eligible 8/15/16 because employee satisfied eligibility requirements and crossed over 1/1/16's entry date and was therefore potentially eligible then. Going to need solid backup for either answer. Boss is involved. Thanks!

Run like Forrest and find a new provider. Not having quarterly loan payments as an option in a recordkeeping system is inconceivable. And then charging late fee..... no thanks!

No Leg, it is not allowable. I'm sure it has been done, though....

Don't take as argumentative... but his entry date would end up being 1/1/2016 anyway.

Thanks rcline, Those were my thoughts as well. Strange.....

700 Hours of Service within the 4 months time period following the Employee's Employment Commencement Date seems like an odd combination to me. Anyone agree?

Austin, You are spot on. I know that if I received a 30 page document every year, I would be annoyed. That's why I want it to be better and more efficient. Thanks

Yes, the 33 pages is in addition to the employee data. Thanks for the comments. Dewey is a popular insurance company. lol

Thanks for getting the ball rolling ETA.

I'm trying to determine what direction I want to go with Year End Census Data collection from Employers. We currently send a 33 page document asking the pertinent information and the definitions of such. I would love to reduce the questionnaire to as little as possible. What do my colleagues here do for year end census? And how much information do you send? I have seen a big 401k provider that really asks for very little. Are you eligible, what's the compensation, who are the HCEs, and who are the owners? A few more questions, but not much. Thanks for your thoughts.

My answer stays the same then. Good Luck

Are the two owners employees? Maybe should have started there....

Yes they go on the top heavy test for 2015. They are 5% owners. Generally determine top heavy status on last day of preceding PY: 12/31/2015 to determine TH status for calendar year plan for 2016. Exception: for first year of new plan, use last day of first PY. Heated discussion? Interesting.....

Thanks again, Tom!

Thanks Tom! For the record, the plan does not have any owners in the plan. 400 to 500 employees. The intent is NOT having all future match contributions subject to new vesting schedule. Do you still see a BRF problem?

Just trying to make sure we don't miss anything.... Below is the current client match scenario: Deferral contributions are allowed first of the month following employment. Match begins first of the month following six months of employment. Match is 100% vested. For anyone hired after January 1, 2017, the client would like to change to the following: Deferral contributions are allowed first of the month following employment. (No Change) Match begins first of the month following employment. Match contributions become subject to 5 year graded schedule. (2-25%) Anyone hired prior to January 1, 2017 would stay on the 6 month, 100% vested match. I can't think of any pitfalls, but boss wants to use fine tooth comb on this one. Thanks